Decline the jab

[Witton Park]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDWdXXclQvs
A summary link here to everyone's favourite nurse lecturer, John Campbell.

I put the link because it summarises this in the Telegraph which I can still access for about 2-3 weeks, but for most it will be behind a paywall.

Oxford AstraZeneca jab was "defective", claims landmark legal case.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...ms-legal-case/

Maybe it won't go anywhere, but if it does.....

[Mike T]

Interesting that the Telegraph is offering annual access to its stuff for £25!

Campbell does make some good points. He does however skip over the important issue of efficacy and absolute vs relative reductions in this - most people would not understand the difference - many medical interventions look trivially effective when looked at this way - it is a shame he does not provide some figures.

[Witton Park]

Interesting that the Telegraph is offering annual access to its stuff for £25!

Campbell does make some good points. He does however skip over the important issue of efficacy and absolute vs relative reductions in this - most people would not understand the difference - many medical interventions look trivially effective when looked at this way - it is a shame he does not provide some figures.

I think he's done it to death on previous podcasts.

[Mike T]

Here is an example of the efficacy of AZ - from the Lancet:

"Vaccine efficacy for the prespecified primary analysis (combining dose groups) against the primary endpoint of COVID-19 occurring more than 14 days after the second dose was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8 to 80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829 participants in the control group)"

Absolute reduction 1.2% - looks trivial, but in terms of numbers it is 70 vs 30 - I know which group I would prefer to be in. This was early in the pandemic, so the numbers becoming infected was relatively small compared to what ensued. Of course I would also want to be in the group which did not get that rare but grim side effect - Vaccine Induced Immune Thrombosis/Thrombocytopenia.

[Witton Park]

one of the several ....

grim side effect - Vaccine Induced Immune Thrombosis/Thrombocytopenia.

[Witton Park]

So New Zealand has a whistle blower, a Mr Barry Young.
Officially 4 deaths have been linked to covid vaccination in New Zealand but the whistle blower makes astonishing claims of a cover up.
It's interesting that he's already being labelled a criminal, a conspiracy theorist, of spreading misinformation an the authorities have put out reassuring statements such as “By chance and separate to a prior Covid-19 vaccination event, some people will experience new illnesses or die from a pre-existing condition shortly after vaccination, especially if they are elderly.”

Yet no one has discredited the actual data.

Just out of interest the New Zealand vaccine programme started in Feb 2021 and since Autumn 2021 NZ has been running at around 8% excess deaths.

Nothing to see here I'm sure.

[Mike T]

A link for those interested:

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-z...-database.html

[Marco]

Just out of interest the New Zealand vaccine programme started in Feb 2021 and since Autumn 2021 NZ has been running at around 8% excess deaths.

Nothing to see here I'm sure.

That is interesting. Do you have figures for excess deaths in the UK since the start of 2021 for a comparison? Or do you have a link to where the figures can be found?

Thanks

[Mossdog]

Related to CV, but regarding lockdown policies, this makes interesting reading, espcially how Sweden was initially ridiculed for daring to be different.

https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis...uring-pandemic

"Now we know more. It seems likely that Sweden did much better than other countries in terms of the economy, education, mental health, and domestic abuse, and still came away from the pandemic with fewer excess deaths than in almost any other European country, and less than half that of the United States—the country where both the president and major newspapers repeatedly used Sweden as a cautionary tale. The conclusion is uncomfortable for other governments. It was not Sweden that engaged in a reckless, unprecedented pandemic experiment, but the rest of the world. This experiment did not turn out well compared to the one country that did not throw out the manual. Millions of people were deprived of their freedoms without a discernible benefit to public health.

It seems likely that Sweden did much better than other countries in terms of the economy, education, mental health, and domestic abuse, and still had less than half the excess death rate of the United States.

This is a lesson for the next disaster—whatever it is, and whenever it strikes. Harsh pandemic restrictions were often defended with reference to the precautionary principle—do not take a particular course of action before an abundance of evidence is available. But there was no evidence indicating that drastic restrictions made sense. In times of uncertainty it doesn’t seem like a precaution to put all your policy eggs in one basket and add to the burden of a health emergency by undermining communities, the economy, and education. Instead, it seems like negligence. Sweden’s alternative model was to rely more on recommendations, have faith in voluntary adaptations to the pandemic, and try to keep as much of society up and running as possible. Based on what we now know, this laissez faire approach seems to have paid off.

[Mike T]

An interesting article that I have only skimmed so far.

Some points come to mind. Sweden locked down voluntarily far more than many realise. They have a larger number of adults who live alone than many other countries, which made isolation easier than in countries with many multi-generation households. The fact that most of Sweden's deaths occurred in 2020, whereas in most other countries it was in 2022 is almost glossed over in the article - a medical intervention that delayed death by 2 years would win a Nobel prize.

Thanks for the link.